> The Constitution* enshrines the right to face your accuser in open court. Sure. They'll get to see the face. Of course, for the vast majority of crimes, the

> The Constitution* enshrines the right to face your accuser in open court. Sure. They'll get to see the face. Of course, for the vast majority of crimes, the accuser is the state. > That to me seems proper; why do you propose to eliminate it Because we don't allow dream interpretation, tarot card readings, or other nonsense to be admitted as evidence either. You know how every few months you hear of some black man that has been in prison for rape for 30 years, until DNA evidence exonerates? Behind every one of those convictions there was some sobbing woman on the stands pointing a finger at him. Eyewitness testimony is junk of the lowest grade, below even those tarot cards I joked about. But yeh, they'll get to sit in the same courtroom with any accusers, we just won't let the accusers get up and make up bullshit that they believe are infallible memories. This isn't a constitutional issue. Legislation is absolutely permitted to set standards of evidence.